https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... h_articles
http://archive.is/rvqew
List of Wikipedia people was begun in January 2018 by User Everymorning (who has since renamed himself IntoThinAir, and identifies himself as Jinkinson Payne Smith) as a way to immortalise and honour those Wikipedians who he was unable to create standalone Wikipedia biographies for, but who have snippets of coverage out there. The triggering incident being his failure to prevent his creation of Steven Pruitt (Ser Amantio di Nicolao) from being deleted......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ven_Pruitt
Showing all the general stupidity and lack of competence this veteran editor is known for (by critics, but not the Wikipedia Administration evidently), Everymorning genuinely seemed to think he would be able to create such a list, and indeed prevent people from being listed on it who already have an article (presumably as this would dilute the desired effect of honorification of those that do not).
You get an idea from his early version.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =818785269
Note the POV presentation of the manner of Sarah Stierch's departure from the WMF - she was "ousted", not "fired".
It grew to this state....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =824173575
http://archive.is/td8Hv
.....before evolving into something else entirely. Note that version had already seen Steirch's entry removed by cowboy Admnistrstor Ritchie333 on the obviously false basis that ArsTechnica and the Smithsonian are not reliable sources.
Fast forward to today.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =859286673
http://archive.is/Qvbud
.....and it has of course been edited mercilessly into a completely different animal. Now, it only lists Wikipedians who have their own articles, the policy logic of which you can certainly appreciate, as well as the obvious benefits that brings (it hides dirty laundry like Stierch for example, assuming someone had reverted that cowboy Admin).
Not that policy seems all that important at this article, since hilariously it does not provide a reference to verify each member's inclusion. It seems to be expected you have to go to their article to verify it, even though some entries have a reference. Bizarre.
It's actually quite a huge BLP policy violation not to reference entries where they are written, since being a Wikipedia person is obviously "contentious", as evidenced by their huge difficulties in defining what a Wikipedia person even is. They've partly solved that by requiring them to have an article, but even then, they're still having difficulty, as seen here.....
The reason for this confusion of course is that "Wikipedia person" is not remotely an appropriate "set" for which you can prove notability as a set, and so by extension, know what ties them together for the purpose of being out together on a Wikipedia list (or category for that matter). They had their chance to identify this fatal flaw when it was put up for deletion in February....I added people from Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff members to this list, but now I'm wondering if we want to separate Wikimedia and Wikipedia. If this list is strictly for Wikipedia people, then we might remove a few entries. Keep in mind, there may be people in this category who are also connected to Wikipedia specifically. Until this has been decided, I've not added entries from Category:Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board members or Category:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... dia_people
....but as is typical for Wikipedia's dysfunctional system of self-governance, the strongest arguments didn't win the day, and nobody involved in the debate seems to have had the courage of their convictions to challenge the outcome, either by immediately asking for a review of the decision not to delete, or putting it up for deletion at a later date, now the strength of that argument is well established through the ongoing confusion over who does and does not go on the list, and the lax approach to policy it seems to engender, because of the distracting effect that it is about themselves.
In a sad reflection the general crapiness of Wikipedia, it is shocking how bad this article is, even after it has had lots of attention from assorted Wikipedians over ten months, being directly edited by no less thst 23 registered editors to date, and registering nearly 1,500 views, most likely nearly all veteran editors. Scarily however, it is "unknown" how many editors have it on their watchlist, which usually means too few to count with any reliability. No watchers means no protection against basic policy violations.
And in a sad reflection of how little knowledge of competence it takes to become an established Wikipedian, the two primary editors of this list, Everymorning and Another Believer, despite having thousands of edits over several years between them, neither has even spotted the more basic and obvious fuck-ups that are present in the current state of the list. Regardless of policy, the approach to referencing is inconsistent, some entries are and some are not. The use of explanatory text is also inconsistent, some have it, most do not, despite all having their own article.
And worst of all, reflection their sheer confusion over what this list is even for, the introduction includes that ridiculously redundant word "notable". Assuming you followed the guidance, namely to correctly choose a defining set, Wikipedia simply does not list things which are not notable, so there is no need to clarify for the dumbfounded reader that the list is not for listing things which are not notable. You can define subject specific inclusion criteria of course, but not criteria that ignore this basic principle.
